Remix.run Logo
troosevelt 11 hours ago

Isn't this kind of Nietzsche's slave morality?

I don't, for example, think Phil Knight is an immoral person who intentionally did wrong things, though his company certainly has. You don't just become a billionaire and become corrupt, you have a mindset that justifies what you're doing and you conveniently excuse yourself or are unaware because you're dealing with things outside of your scope because a single person can't handle that much authority without delegating to people who will inevitably do corrupt things. PK didn't start out wanting to be a billionaire, he just wanted to sell shoes and maybe become a millionaire.

I suspect the vast majority of people who interacted with Epstein did it just to make connections and they made excuses, eg, Gates. I'm more likely to call someone immoral who interacted with him post-conviction than a billionaire, but generally labeling people moral/immoral instead of their actions misses why people do what they do. Very few people want to be considered immoral, but many people don't have an issue excusing immoral actions. Does that make sense?

If you want to get people top stop doing things like this, you have to attack the actions, not the person, because when you say all billionaires are immoral, it gives them nowhere to retreat, it gives them more reason to dig in, because who are you but some seemingly envious person who's made just as many compromises, just at lower levels?

mikkupikku 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> slave morality

I think if you're saying: "These billionaires are bad because they do bad things, and being so rich makes their capacity for harm much worse."

That's not slave morality, at least not necessarily, because the "doing bad things" can probably be expressed using normal classic values. It becomes slave morality when you abbreviate the above to: "These billionaires are bad because it's bad for anybody to be so rich."

trinsic2 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah but I don't think this is being said here.

Are you just trying make a point outside of what is being said? I'm hearing people saying the first part in many of these responses.

mikkupikku 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm responding to troosevelts question, not accusing anybody in particular of one or the other. I've seen plenty of both on the internet, but in general I don't think it's slave morality unless somebody is saying that having so much money is intrinsically evil, that to have gotten that much money is wrong in itself, regardless of what the individual actually did or is doing.

shevy-java 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I suspect the vast majority of people who interacted with Epstein did it just to make connections and they made excuses, eg, Gates.

I am not sure about that.

Sex may have played a factor in this. I use the word "may", as I don't know for certain, but I don't buy into the "just to make connections". The superrich don't really need to "make connections" on an island where underage girls party.

jacquesm 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> on an island where underage girls party

on an island where they traffic underage girls and rape them.

trinsic2 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Thank you for making that clarification. It seems like the parent was trying to normalize the "underage" and "party" part.

Sohcahtoa82 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> an island where underage girls party.

What an absolutely gross mischaracterization of what happens there.